About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
with secretary albright, as i do with the clinton administration in support of israel. >> in general at that time under the clinton administration, the you think that they were "and going way too far toward israel in the middle east peace process"? >> no, i do not, because i was very supportive of what the president did at the end of his term. in january of 2001, in fact, i recount that in my book. >> just to clarify, that is the sort of flip-flopper but i am talking about. that is what you said then, and you are changing you -- your mind now. >> that is not a flip-flop. i do not recall everything i have said in the past 25 years. if i could go back and change some of it, i would. but it does not discount the support i have always given israel and continue to give israel. >> and going to what you said today talking about iran as "legitimate elected government" you think that the election of this iranian government coming to power was free, fair, and legitimate? >> i noted the term "legitimate" was not the term i should have used. i should have used recognized. that is the more appropriate term. i
the clinton administration. and connect that to a comment i made in the world herald about they don't work. they are ineffective. and by the way, i've already noted for the record here that i have supported and voted for some unilateral sanctions. i think i noted three specific ones that i recall. but on your specific questions about the specific comment. just to give you an example of what i was talking about. you were not in the senate at the time. some were. but those who were here in the senate might recall the european union's reaction to that ilsa act. i was not in the senate when that was voted on originally, so i didn't have a vote. but in 1988 the european union passed a resolution against the united states and threatened to take the united states to the world trade organization. as a consequence, secretary albright had to get into this and as a consequence to that president clinton had to sign a waiver to allow a french oil company not to be part of that u.s. unilateral waiver. now, i'm not suggesting the united states action should be hostage to the european union or any other c
to states. a man was arrested at dallas -- at dulles airport. he had been close to the clintons administration and have worked with the bush administration. he was -- close to the clinton administration and worked with the bush demonstration. he is doing 23 years in prison. what would be the prospect the someone's gets back into the country and, -- someone gets back into the country and, from a political standpoint, they are all rest -- he starts talking about -- their arrest could be politically embarrassing. what if you have someone working closely with the president. we had a member of a known terrorist organization meeting in the white house last year it even though secretary napolitano could not answer that she even knew that was happening when it was in the papers. by the time she gets into the city and she says he was vetted 3 tons. there are things that could be proven so politically embarrassing that if somebody gets back into the lead to states, someone might look for a way to see that they never testify. we are talking hypothetically. i would like to know what of the
, with a number of the university's distinguished alumni. in particular president clinton, and he and i during the time i was both o.m.b. director and then as his chief of staff, would spend many hours of conversation talking about his experience as a southern baptist getting a catholic education. he talked about it a lot. and also during my time, obviously, in the obama administration i greatly benefited from many of the georgetown graduates. i had the honor to have someone as my chief of staff, jeremy bash, who graduated here from georgetown, serve as my chief of staff at the c.i.a. and then followed me to the pentagon as my chief of staff. and also someone who's had a public affairs at the pentagon, george little, who is also someone who both graduated and later taught here at georgetown. talented young individuals who have been at my side every day for the last four years at both the c.i.a. and the pentagon, and i am deeply grateful for their work for me and on behalf of the nation and i am deeply grateful for georgetown for training such extraordinary public servants. and speaking of extr
returned to d.c. to become deputy secretary for managing resources. he helped secretary of state clinton transform the state department and honing his skills in the international arena. skills that i'm confident will prove useful as he works to address the economic challenges he will be facing as treasury secretary. jack spent the last few years serving the administration as director of omb and as white house chief of staff. he brought nonsecurity spending to its lowest level since dwight eisenhower sat in the oval office. on the fiscal cliff, he kept taxes low on the middle-class. at the same time, decrease the nation's deficit by more than $700 billion. there are many subjects the treasury secretary must cover. not any treasury nominee can have expertise immediately in all of them. the jack has an uncanny ability to dive into a subject, learn, study, and master it in a factual and non-ideological way. i look forward to working with jack and the rest of the economic team as we continue to focus on protecting the middle- class and combating our nation's long-term economic challenges. mr.
of the senators sent a letter to president clinton for reaffirming our solidarity with israel. i carried that their around. -- letter around. i remember it well. senator hagel is one of just four who refused to sign that letter. i am sure he will want to comment on that. in 2001, he was one of just two senators voting against the bill for extending harsh sanctions against iran. a year later, he urged president bush to support iran's membership in the world trade organization. senator hagel voted against a resolution designating iran's revolutionary guard corps, a group responsible for killing soldiers in iraq and afghanistan, as a terrorist organization. on multiple occasions, he has advocated for direct negotiations with iran, a regime that continues to oppress its people and doggedly pursue a nuclear weapon capability and employ terrorist proxies including hamas and hezbollah. senator hagel has been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and global zero movement. we are very sensitive to that. the president has said many times that he wants a nuclear- free world, and i know that
submitted by hillary clinton. third, dealing with the types of oils that is being studied. the scientists have also studied it. it is not a thought. there is science based on those three factors. >> absolutely. the pipeline being proposed has got to be the most studied pipeline ever proposed on the planet. i do not know if there is a valve at every hinge, but there are extra measures that they took on board because of the concerns raised on nebraska and other places. they have gone out of their way to ensure that a modern, high- tech pipeline with lots of extra features would be the state this possible way to get the oil to its destination. >> i do not want to prolong the argument about the myths and non=myths,, but back to the oil. let's say it was successful in not being exported somewhere else. there would still be hundreds of barrels coming from someplace else. it is important to realize that the amount of oil that will be consumed would be the same. that oil has its own risk associated with it. tankers are notoriously risky for bringing oil. i think we have to look at this on balance
do, sir. >> we were asked to go to iraq by senator clinton to see if we could push the iraqis to make sure we got legal protection to our troops. when the prime minister said, how many are you going to recommend, i turn to you and you said, i believe we are still working on that. the recall that conversation? >> yes, i do. >> it was not sent general austin did not know what he needed. it was just that nobody would tell him what they would approve. general austin always had a firm view. i said, that may be more than the political market can bear. i am not insensitive about the fatigue back here at home. i know you were making the best recommendations you could. my problem is not with you, general austin. you put the numbers to paper and at the end of the day, we had none. i want to put into the record a load of articles about iraq. blood for oil. iraq's returned to bloodshed. -- return to bloodshed. i would like permission to put all of these articles into the record. i would like everybody to know general austin thought long and hard about the residual force. do you remember when you
clinton was. obviously senator santorum did not have the formidable apparatus that hillary clinton had. >> do you think that it had -- >> what do we know about the republican party? what do we know about mitt romney? [laughter] >> i think that is a testament. he did not begin this with a national or geographical or ideological base. in those debates, through skill , he took positions that people disagreed with like healthcare, but he given is the republican party that he had the qualities that he wanted to be the nominee. >> every week it was the new whack a mole. .e went from perry to gingrich >> herman cain was next. >> and then he blew up at the bloomberg debates. who were these? where they? -- who were they? it seems like it was the same percentage of the electorate. >> governor perry was formidable. senator santorum -- anyone who underestimates him --so much of running for president, the guys and gal to work the hardest -- senator santorum have the work ethic. plen>> the minute you say that,, that is right. [laughter] >> thank you. if we are going head to head, he could take away
. each of us on either side of president clinton as he announced the once unthinkable normalization of our relations with vietnam, and efforts that john mccain and i worked on for about 10 years to try do. in the last decade, thanks in large part to the work of usaid, our exports to vietnam increased by more than 700%. every one of those percentage points our jobs here in america. in the last two decades, 1000 vietnamese students and scholars have studied spanish and taught -- have studied and taught in america through the fulbright program, including the foreign minister, who i just talked to the other day and who has feelings about america because of that engagement. the list goes on. as the emerging middle class in india, the world's largest democracy, buys our products, that means jobs and incomes for our own middle-class. as our traditional assistance to brazil and decreases, trade there is increasing. brazil is one of the new tigers moving at a double-digit pace. it supports additional jobs here at home, many in the u.s. travel and tourism industry. when jefferson expanded our
. every budget summit that i had been a part of in the reagan years, first bush years, during the clinton administration, every budget summit we knew that defense had to play a role in trying to be able to control our deficits. soon after i became secretary, i was handed a number of $487 billion, almost half a trillion dollars that i was to cut out of the defense budget. it was contained in the budget control act, and i was required to be able to get that number of savings over the next 10 years. after a decade of blank check spending in the department of defense, it was important for us, the leaders of the department, chairman of the joint chiefs, the service chiefs, the service secretaries and myself who strongly believe that we had to meet this challenge of reducing the defense budget but we had to do it in a way that simply would not hallow out the force. we came out of every other period, every other war, we made the terrible mistake of hallowing out the force coming out of world war ii, coming out of korea, coming out of vietnam, coming out of the cold war. the attitude was, just cu
know president clinton took credit for some of that but it was not his policies like the democrats like to claim that brought us that prosperity. he never raised taxes, president reagan lowered taxes. so the economy was still able to beat those headwinds that came with the clinton tax hikes. it continued to grow under reagan's tax in the 1980's. we need to look at something different. what we're doing is not working. all this spending and the spending the president provides is not going to get us where we need to be. it has not worked in the last four years. what the health care reform plan, some callers have said that this is good for the middle class. it hasn't. everyone i know has seen a tremendous hike in their health care premiums. >> we will go now to a re-air of president obama's state of the union address and marco rubio's g.o.p. response. >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states! [applause] >> thank you. thank you. mr. speaker, mr. vice president, members of congress, fellow citizens -- fifty-one years ago, john f. kennedy declared to this chamber that "the constituti
, and only 10 days to go to england? the state department undersecretary clinton, which will be continued -- i talked at length about this with secretary perry -- kerry. we need to put the officers were the demand is. they are profit centers because of the visa fees where the jobs in america. that is an example of what we can do better, in terms of changes that can be made without even passing legislation. i think that is what ashcroft was getting at. >> that is an easy 2 million jobs with the 16% black. >> that is the easiest low hanging fruit for exports. the biggest chunk of that, in addition to agriculture equipment for minnesota, and medical devices, will be tourism. >> we have arthur and eric. the microphone. >> i want to confirm the numbers. right now, we have 65,000 h1-b visas allowed under this cap. our bill puts at about 115,000 the first year. we escalate up to 300 dozen. that is what the numbers are. -- come up to 300,000. that is what the numbers are. >> my name is eric watkins. i have a question about temporarily agriculture workers. back in the late 1950's, a work shoulder
independent study commissioned by the clinton justice department, the one just discussed, we were told it proved the last assault weapons ban had no affect on crime. that it proved it. mr. walsh, your testimony addresses that study. do the studies prove, as we have been told, that the assault weapons ban was ineffective? or do they show something else? >> if i may begin with the earlier 1990's-era study, the initial conclusion was that there was potentially up to a 6.7% reduction in gun murders as a result of the assault weapons ban and the high-capacity magazine bam. in subsequent analysis, the authors did not prove that was statistically significant here they were trying to be thoughtful and very precise about the amount of evidence they had. >> this was done only on one- year's data, because it was 1997. they said our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. beyond what would have been expected in view of on going crime, demographic, and economic trends. that is a quote. i think this is very important. because you cannot pro
that disagrees with that system? >> it was a recommendation. >> we came awfully close until the clinton administration reversed their endorsement. everybody agrees it is some kind of system to make sure they higher only legal workers. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> your testimony said that we must do at least three things on immigration reform. border security, streamline the immigration process and create a path to citizenship. it seems to me there is a further saying that any good immigration reform should do, to eliminate discrimination present in the system. and one such discrimination is certainly the fact that people other than gay and lesbian people can sponsor their spouses for immigration into the united states. under our laws, a gay and lesbian people cannot marry other gay and lesbian people. at least the federal government will not recognize it. i call a cruelty on people, and unnecessary cruelty because whether they be lover or partner of an american citizen, they can't be here. and you are keeping people apart. there is legislation called
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)